A fallacy is a kind of error in reasoning. The alphabetical list below contains 204 names of the most common fallacies, and it provides brief
explanations and examples of each of them. Fallacies should not be persuasive, but they often are.

To make progress, I think the successful scientist will become an expert in recognizing and combating the fallacies rather than coming up with new
experiments with laboratory equipment or inventing new equipment.

It is no secret that a large and growing number of physicists, as well as scientists in allied fields, are profoundly dissatisfied with the general
state of physical theory as it now stands, and are convinced that some drastic overhauling will be necessary.

This book was published in 1963.

Indeed there were a large number of physicists calling for an overhaul in 1963. And there was a revolutionary overhaul in the 1970s, which
brought us the Standard Model.

It is no secret that among a large and growing number of physicists, the main source of dissatisfaction with the Standard Model is its stubborn
refusal to get anything wrong. Despite throwing at it the most creative and sophisticated experimental challenges in history. The thing just works.

It's a bit annoying, because we desperately need to see clear evidence of something beyond it so we can answer some deeper questions. There's no
shortage of clever ideas for what lies beyond, but no definitive observational basis for any of them.

One thing for sure, making the case against the nuclear atom after the 1970s would be like making the case for the earth being flat after having been
into space and looked back and seen a globe. It ain't going to happen.

(Except by people like Beebs who'll make a case against the nose on your face by refusing to look at it.)

To make progress, I think the successful scientist will become an expert in recognizing and combating the fallacies rather than coming up with new
experiments with laboratory equipment or inventing new equipment.

Originally posted by Bobathon
But that is exactly what any decent experiment is for.

No, experiments are for observation.

Combating fallacies is necessary for the valid interpretation and following up on what is observed.

Which is exactly what any decent
experiment is for.

I see what you're saying - you're referring to the physical act of doing the experiment. But nobody performs experiments just to observe, without
coming to any conclusions. They are always intimately connected.

And as you say, a thorough understanding of fallacies is essential for arriving at valid conclusions.

Originally posted by Bobathon
I see what you're saying - you're referring to the physical act of doing the experiment. But nobody performs experiments just to observe, without
coming to any conclusions. They are always intimately connected.

DB Larson's work is focused on the problems we have in physics because of the conclusions drawn, relied upon, and built upon.

Originally posted by Bobathon
I see what you're saying - you're referring to the physical act of doing the experiment. But nobody performs experiments just to observe, without
coming to any conclusions. They are always intimately connected.

DB Larson's work is focused on the problems we have in physics because of the conclusions drawn, relied upon, and built upon.

Honest scientists need to get to work on these problems.

Logical fallacy, Mary. Or are you saying scientists who discover things that verify the standard model are dishonest scientists?

DB Larson's work is focused on the problems we have in physics because of the conclusions drawn, relied upon, and built upon.

Honest scientists need to get to work on these problems.

For someone interested in fallacies, these are rather silly things to say.

Larson's work is focused on his own personal quest against parts of mainstream science, it's full of inconsistencies and errors, and it's all
entirely out of date. Why would honest scientists be interested in that?

Are you serious? Did you read the "case against the nuclear atom"? It does have a modicum of science history, but also contains a large amount of
silly theorising. Like "volume of an atom should be roughly proportional to atomic weight". Why? Because Larson said so. His comments on cristalline
lattice are equally laughable. And oh yeah, his hovercraft is full of eels.

I have. I do. He does. And he gets a great deal of it wrong. The case against the nuclear atom chapter that we were
discussing goes entirely off the rails as soon as he starts making claims regarding observational data at the start of the third paragraph. It's a
blatant testament to his ignorance of what has been observed. It's an awful start, and it doesn't get any better.

Mary, if you want to discuss any fallacies of experimental physics that require addressing, don't just make vague generalised implications with no
content. Say what they are and let's discuss them.

If you believe that any of Larson's claims are true and are significant, don't just make vague generalisations, say specifically which ones and
let's examine them.

(somehow, judging from past experience, I don't think this will work, but one has to try)

155. Extremely high temperatures are reached only in very large aggregates of matter. If the aggregate is large enough to reach the destructive
temperature limit of the heaviest element present, this activates the process of conversion of mass to thermal energy described in (147). We identify
such an aggregate as a star.

Mary, what do you think of that? What evidence points towards conversion of mass to thermal energy, and do you think it's true that high temperatures
are only reached in larger aggregates of matter? Also Mary, how large does such aggregate need to be?

157. The principle that small numbers are more probable than larger numbers applies to the formation of the elements (with some modifications due
to other factors). The heaviest elements are therefore present in the stars only in relatively small concentrations, and the energy released in their
destruction is dissipated by radiation from the stellar surfaces. As successively lighter elements reach their destructive limits, the concentration
of the individual element arriving at the limit increases, and eventually this process reaches an element that is present in quantities that produce
more energy than the radiation mechanism can handle. The excess energy then blows the star apart in a gigantic explosion. We identify the overabundant
element as iron, and the explosion as a Type I supernova.

Well in this particular piece of nonsense DB Larson demonstrates his wholesale ignorance of the nuclear binding energy. Small numbers are more
probable than larger numbers? This is just mind-numbing stupidity.

Why iron? How does iron produce energy? Well because DB Larson said so.

In reality, of course, iron does not produce energy in stars. Iron is the heaviest element present in stars prior to a possible supernova event due to
reasons like explained here. And when a star blows up, heavier elements can be formed.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.